Damn! 8 threads on page 1 are either started by death master or tdk.........Speaks volumes about the quality of threads on the forum currently.

Click to expand...

+1. I've gone to Odds and Ends, and have stopped regular posting. Out here, it is either TDK's stream-of-consciousness dreck, or Death Master's dire need for attention, or Thundervolley's hate-filled, rationality-challenged vitriol.

Better to stay away and use time wisely than to participate in this dumb parade.

Nadal's is consistent, while Federer's was dangerous and could end the point anytime during his peak.

Click to expand...

I agree. On clay, I would take Nadal's; on any other surface, I would take prime Fed. Not only great insid-out forehand, but love his inside-in forehand andhis variety.
Although for pure fury, got to go with Gonzo

I agree. On clay, I would take Nadal's; on any other surface, I would take prime Fed. Not only great insid-out forehand, but love his inside-in forehand andhis variety.
Although for pure fury, got to go with Gonzo

Click to expand...

Too bad Federer couldn't always keep his level up this high on clay, or it would be an easy decision to go with his forehand on that surface as well:

Insane winners from anywhere on the court those last two sets. Nadal was playing very well but was still helpless.

Click to expand...

"Federer, today, unfortunately came out with no balls... you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time."

Federer or Nadal in my opinion.. hard to choose.. maybe a very slight edge to Federer's forehand in general, because he has a more allround forehand. Nadal's forehand primarily is a claycourt forehand.

I would probably say Federer, up until very recently, the power, consistency and angles from everywhere was a sight to behold. Other notable forehands, Nadal for that whippy spin, punishing opponent's backhands. Would have to also argue Gonzo and Soderling for the power and consistency.

Between Nadal and Federer Nadal's forehand is way better on clay, a bit better on grass (when both are their best), and about equal on hard courts (when both are their best) so I would go with Nadal overall. However there are others it is hard to know how would compare if they played today like Lendl, Sampras, Laver, so it still hard to say whose is the best or even most destructive ever.

You aren't taking into account the myriad of factors that influence this.

Nadal sure has the best topspin forehand of all time, but Federer's is more versatile across all surfaces, and all speeds.

I say that because Fed can take the ball VERY early, redirect pace much better than Nadal can, flatten it out arguably better, forehand volley slightly better, on the run forehand slice better, and still get within 80% of Nadal's topspin when he wants to loop it.

I am by no means demeaning Nadal's, quite the opposite. I think these two are above everyone else by a considerable margin.

As good as Nadal's forehand has been, he moves well and has great drive. I think if Federer's forehand was a little lower, he wouldn't have been even close to the player he was. His style of play that made him who he is, is his versatility. Nadal could still grind out victories with a slightly less lethal forehand.

It is even further proven by Federer's backhand, which is his weakness; Nadal's is much stronger.

Sampras's running cross court forehand was the best ever seen. The way he would bait Agassi and others to try to go down the line was a thing of beauty to watch. He would have loved to play Djoker because Djokers proclivity to hit the BH DTL.

Federer's forehand after serve was the best ever seen. His putaways after an opponents service return is unequaled.

Nadal's heavy topspin was the best heavy topspin forehand ever seen. The high kicker to the righties BH changed the direction of tennis. However, if he was a righty it would not have been near as effective.

lendl lost 11 slam finals. he did not change the course of history with his forehand.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Modern power tennis is based on Lendl's game. I am not a huge Lendl fan but he won 11 slams in a highly diverse specialized era. His only weakness was he could not develop a decent S&V game which was a must back then to win Wimbledon. I have little doubt he could have won 15 or more with homogenous slow gritty courts like today.

Are you kidding? Modern power tennis is based on Lendl's game. I am not a huge Lendl fan but he won 11 slams in a highly diverse specialized era. His only weakness was he could not develop a decent S&V game which was a must back then to win Wimbledon. I have little doubt he could have won 15 or more with homogenous slow gritty courts like today.

His FH was the original killer forehand.

Click to expand...

I think he only won 8 majors. He made at least 1 final for 11 consecutive years... that might be what you're thinking of.

Players can and do hit forehands with slice (slice forehand on the run (as you said), drop shots, deep passing shot slice a la Fed), but their forehand least 99% of the time is a topspin forehand.

Click to expand...

No, I was quoting the poster before. I'm intrigued about the slice FH on the run because it's not a shot I'm familiar with. I've seen players hit slice FHs while sliding, but not on the run (Sampras, Fed and Nadal tend to hit a reverse/buggy whip FH on the run). Maybe I haven't been paying much attention?

No, I was quoting the poster before. I'm intrigued about the slice FH on the run because it's not a shot I'm familiar with. I've seen players hit slice FHs while sliding, but not on the run (Sampras, Fed and Nadal tend to hit a reverse/buggy whip FH on the run). Maybe I haven't been paying much attention?